Skip to main content

Full text of "The Creative Woman"

See other formats




Feminist Scholarship ' 

An Intellectual Corrective 

Includes Index to Volumes I and II 

i^FDlIDgJ Wtfi 


A quarterly. Governors State University, Park Forest South, IL 60466. 

VOL. 2, NO. 4, SPRING 1979 

A quarterly published at Governors State University under the auspices of the Provost's Office 

1979, Governors State University and Helen Hughes 


Helen E Hughes. Editor 
Lynn Thomas Strauss, Editorial Assistant 
Joan Lewis, Editorial Consultant 
Suzanne Oliver, Graphic Designer 

Harriet Gross 

Table of Contents 


Donna Bandstra, Social Sciences 

Rev. Ellen Dohner, Religion 

Rita Durant, League of American Penwomen 

Harriet Gross, Sociology/Women's Studies 

Helene Guttman, Biological Sciences 

Mimi Kaplan, Library Resources 

Shirley Katz, Music/ Literature 

Young Kim, Communications Science 

Harriet Marcus, Journalism 

Betye Saar, Fine Arts 

Marjorie Sharp, Human Relations Services 

Sara Shumer, Political Theory 

Emily Wasiolek, Literature 

Harriet Gross, Guest editor 

Ruth Bleier 

Judith Long Laws 

Barbara F. Reskln 

June Sochen 

Helen Hughes 







on Sex Roles and Communication 
Page 13, Notes/References. 
Numbers 2 and 3 were omitted 
and should read Ibid with the 
remainder following sequentially, 


by Harriet Gross 

Media saturation and marketplace 
overkill keep the term "revolution" 
from effectively Identifying signifi- 
cant upheaval and change. Nevertheless, 
in its dictionary (as distinguished 
from its Madison Avenue sense), it 
Is still the most appropriate term to 
describe the Women's Movement's far- 
reaching impact on our lives. Most 
people, however, who do acknowledge 
this Impact think of its legal, 
political and social consequences 
when they use the term "revolution. " 
Changing relations between the sexes 
1n the family and at work; lifestyle 
options; discrimination settlements, 
etc. are for most people what this 
revolution is all about. And, of 
course, it is_ about all of these things 
and dramatically so. But its revolu- 
tionary impact goes beyond these 
popularly acknowledged changes. The 
academic arm of the Women's Movement — 
what is called feminist scholarship- 
is creating equally explosive, monumental 
intellectual consequences which threaten 
to unhinge prevailing ways of "doing 
science." In this sense, the intellectual 
challenge of feminist scholarship is as 
revolutionary as are the social, legal 
and political consequences. In fact 
I would argue that the Intellectual 
revolution 1s In some ways more 
fundamental (1f less personally salient 
for most women) because legal, political 
and social consequences depend upon 
scientific validation— at least in a 
modern, complex society such as ours. 

This issue presents examples of 
the revolutionary "rethink" spawned 
by academic feminists who bring to 
their professional efforts that critical 
focus so crucial to legitimate scholar- 
ship. Professor Bleler's article 
speaks to the Implications of andro- 
centric (male-centered) bias in the 
biological sciences- in terms of 

formulating questions, evaluating 
evidence and rendering conclusions 
about sex-related consequences. 
Professor Laws reviews social science 
assumptions and conclusions from a 
similar perspective. Her article 
deals with differences between 
feminist and patriarchal social 
science. Professor Reskln's study of 
factors Influencing the productivity 
of men and women chemists points up 
the difficulties women scientists 
encounter 1n doing science - how 
the organization of university settings 
constrains against professional 
recognition. Finally, Professor 
Sochen's article summarizes ways in 
which feminist history is an Intellectual 
corrective to previous views of the 
common heritage of men and women. 

As these articles indicate, 
academic feminists are shaking up 
the tenets, procedures and the yery 
foundation of their disciplines in 
profound and unsettling ways. Numerous 
observers (including myself in a 1974 
article on this topic) have compared 
the new feminist challenge to the kind 
of paradigm crisis, or assumption- 
unhinging, which was occasioned by 
the shift from a geocentric (the earth 
1s the center of our "world") to a 
heliocentric (the sun is the center) 
worldview. That shift ushered in a 
whole new way of thinking about our 
relationship to the environment 
which had diminishing and unsettling 
consequences for man's view of himself. 
So will this one. 


Univouity Pfco{e64<M o£ Sociology 
and Womzn*6 Studies CooidinatotL, 
GoveAnotu State. UniveA&ity 
?k V UrUveAAity 0& ClUcago, 
Sociology 1974 


by Ruth Bleler 

Biological and natural scientists 
enjoy a mystique of objectivity that 
assumes their bias-free Intellectual 
development In a culture character- 
ized by unequivocal biases, values and 
seeming eternal truths. But even 1f 
people grant that scientists, human 
beings after all, may have biases like 
the rest, they believe that these will 
not Interfere with their pursuit of 
knowledge. But biases and value systems 
may be so Intricate and obscure, and 
their manifestations 1n scientific 
research so subtle— in the language 
that 1s used, the kinds of questions 
that are asked, the design methodology 
of the experiments, the particular 

Interpretation made of the results 

that they may be apparent to only the 
most wary and prepared mind. A confound- 
ing difficulty 1s that those who can 
ordinarily apply their Intelligence 
and their experience of the real world 
to a critical evaluation of at least 
some work 1n the social sciences, 
philosophy or literature, become disarmed 
by the seemingly esoteric and pure 
nature of biological research. 

Not only, however, 1s 1t difficult 
for a non-b1olog1st to detect many of 
the experimental flaws 1n a given study, 
especially 1f they are flaws of omissions., 
failure to use appropriate controls or 
to dte and explain contrary experimental 
results— but it 1s also difficult for 
most biologists, except for those who 
have been trained 1n the particular 
field or are conversant with the liter- 
ature and have an open and critical or 
downright suspicious mind. To give a 
simple example: 1f an experiment 
shows unequlvolcally that giving androgens 
to a newborn female rat Increases her 
mounting behav1or(2), or her fighting 
behavior, as an adult, or that castrating 
a male newborn rat (I.e., removing his 
source of androgens) decreases his mount- 
ing or fighting behavior, the conclusion 
seems acceptable that androgens exert 
an effect on the developing brain that 

determines subsequent adult behavior. 
Would readers wonder whether estrogens (3) 
were Injected Into similar groups of 
rats as controls for comparison or 
would they know that, when estrogens 
are Injected, both mounting and fight- 
Trig behavior may be Increased 1n females 
and males? 

It 1s Important to appreciate 
that studies of hormonal effects on 
behavior have yielded much contradic- 
tory data, and Interpretations or 
conclusions are often Inadequate since 
much 1s not known. Some complicating 
considerations are that: first, recent 
work Indicates that so-called androgen 
effects 1n the fetus are actually due 
to estrogens: the effective forms 
of androgens are first converted within 
cells, Including brain cells, to 
estrogens (4); second, the role of maternal 
and fetal adrenal progestins (5) and 
maternal estrogens (to which all fetuses, 
male or female, are exposed 1n very 
large amounts during pregnancy) in 
fetal differentiation 1s only begin- 
ning to be explored (6); third, hormonal 
effects vary with dosage, timing, age 
and species of animals, specific forms 
of the compounds used and probably 
other as yet unknown variables (7). 

The significance for humans of the 
androgen research on rodents 1s great 
since 1t has served as the model for 
biological determlnlsts who attribute 
sex differences 1n human social roles 
.. and behaviors to the early organizing 
effects of androgens on the developing 
brains of human males (an untested 
hypotheslsTI Male dominance and aggres- 
slvlty as they are presumably manifested 
1n patriarchy, territoriality and 
wars are thus proclaimed as basic 
biological drives - and evolutionarily 
inevitable (8). 

(1) Part of the explanation for the 
appeal of such theories lies, I believe, 
In a particular state of consciousness 
(however unconscious): for scientists, 
educated and bearing a liberal humanist 
tradition, the existence of war and 
oppression 1s a heavy moral burden, 
especially for those who may feel obliged 
to either assume responsibility for or 

xplaln the human condition. It 1s 
insistent with both the scientific and 
iberal tradition to be satisfied 
Ith analyses and conclusions that 
reclude efforts for change, let alone 
»volut1on. Theories of biological 
id evolutionary determinism, recently 
»v1ved as sodobiology, are deeply 
itlsfylng: things are as they are because 
ley have to be so; our social instltu- 
ions have their genetic evolutionary 
rlglns 1n the bits and pieces of be- 
ivloral repertoires seen 1n all other 
pedes from primates to ants and bees. 

This approach suffers from a number 
f basic flaws which I shall attempt 
) describe and illustrate. 

: set of flaws derive, I 

another state of consdous- 
see affecting the validity 
es of research: the 
s awareness of self 
ke him) as universal , 

to humanity, viewing all 
the other sex, other 
civilizations, other species 
in the light and language 

experiences, values and 
and his fraternity are the 

which all the others are 
Interpreted. This ethno/ 

is revealed In a number 

The firs 
»11 eve, from 
»ss which I 
F large bodl 
ind those 11 
» equivalent 
ie others - 
iltures and 
id epochs— 
f h1s(9) own 
;l1efs. He 
>rms against 
iasured and 
P ways. 

1. Language (10). In most 
ilmal studies on M aggress1vity, H 
3r example, the behavior being observed 
id counted as a measure of aggresslvlty 
s fighting encounters. Yet the results 
id conclusions are discussed 1n terms 
f aggressiyity , not fighting . For 
<ample, following androgen injections, 
i animal may fight more often. The 
inclusion 1s made then that "aggresslv- 
ty" Is androgen-dependent, not simply 
id more accurately, that fighting 
shavlor Is Influenced by androgens. 
particular arbitrary measure of 
ggresslvity becomes synonymous with 1t. 
jt whatever the investigator Intends, 
ie term aggresslvlty Is not value- free 
id objective, it is not synonymous with 
ighting behavior , but rather a word 
irlously defined and socially endowed 
Ith a range of attributes from simple 

combatlveness through assertiveness, 
Independence, ambltlousness, creativity 
and imagination - mainly desirable 
human characteristics and associated 
with people who are leaders, which 
under present social conditions means 
that they happen to be men. So by means 
of semantic film flam 1t has been demon- 
strated that men are dominant or superior 
(I.e., aggressive) because of Inborn 
hormonal differences. Even though I 
have not the space here to develop the 
argument fully, I should like to assert 
that findings from prlmatology and 
anthropology do not support a genetic/ 
biological /hormonal /evolutionary basis 
for "aggresslvity" 1n the modern male 
nor 1s there even any sociological 
(or common sense) evidence that aggres- 
slvlty 1s a male universal that requires 
tortured~"genet1c explanations (11). 

2. The choice of models . Efforts 
to uncover the biological origins of 
human behavior lead researchers to study 
animals, whose behavior is presumed to 
be less "contaminated" than that of 
humans by cultural influences. The 
Investigator chooses a primate model 
which reflects his (sometimes her) 
image or fantasies of relationships 
1n human society and then Imposes the 
language and concepts which are used to 
describe human behavior upon observations 
and Interpretations of primate behaviors. 
The conclusions are inevitable. A 
favorite primate model, for example, 
for human behavior and social organization 
1s that of the large and dominant male 
1n the centrally Important position of 
having first choice of food and of 
sexual partners among his harem of females. 
That the term harem is used to designate 
a single-male troop of females, is itself 
a revealing use of biased language which 
reflects androcentric fantasy. But the 
danger and the power of language meant 
that the use of the word harem presumed 
a set of cultural and social relationships 
between the single male and the female 
troop and thus effectively for decades 
precluded any scientific observation and 
Investigation of the actual relationships. 
Yet the recent work of Jane Lancaster (12) 
and others suggests that 1n some species 
the single male's sole role may be that 

of a stud, not a protector or potentate 
and his presence 1n the troop is at the 
discretion of the females. 

A favorite troop model is that of 
the savanna baboon, the large aggressive 
male defending the females and babes, 
dominating all others, deciding troop 
movements, and having first choice in 
food, sex and grooming. Yet, when the 
same species of baboons lives in forests, 
the females form the core of the troop, 
and determine when and where the troop 
moves. Dominance and aggressive inter- 
actions are rare or non-existent, and 
when danger threatens, the first ones 
up the trees are the males, who are 
unencumbered with infants. A primate 
model can be found to demonstrate any 
set of human characteristics or social 
interactions. Data being accumulated by 
primatologists and anthropologists 
make 1t clear that there exists no 
single pattern of aggressivity, dominance, 
troop defense, sex roles, or any other 
social behaviors either across or even 
within primate species and human cultures 


3. Fanciful theorizing e Another 
assumption has been that dominance 
hierarchies among nonhuman primates 
are universal (and male) and that they 
serve species survival purposes by pro- 
viding the most aggressive (i.e., dominant) 
males with most frequent access to the 
estrous (I.e., fertile) females. This 
thesis, of course, neatly explains how 
the presumed male genes for aggressivity 
were propagated and transmitted to 
modern man and once again leads to the 
inevitability of patriarchy. However, 
now that the questions of dominance 
hierarchies and of the relationship 
between dominance and mating have begun 
to be seriously Investigated also by 
anthropologists who are not motivated to 
justify the sexual status quo, important 
observations have emerged that confound 
the stereotyped conceptions (14): 
First, Dominance hierarchies are not 
universal or always male. In many 
primate species dominance hierarchies 
cannot be discerned and 1n our closest 
relatives, the chimpanzees, dominance 
Interactions appear to form a minute 
fraction of total behaviors (15). 

Furthermore, 1n some species dominance 
is matrlHneal and males derive their 
status from their mothers. For example, 
among Japanese macaques, rhesus macaques, 
and vervets, 1t has been observed that 
rank order runs from the mother down 
through the older to the younger daughters 
and the rank of a a male depends on that 
of his mother. Second, Across primate 
species there 1s no correlation between 
dominance and sex, size, aggressiveness, 
or mating behavior. In some carefully 
studied baboon and Japanese macaque 
troops, no relationship was found 
between male dominance rank and mating 
behavior (16). The large silverbacked 
male gorilla may set troop movement, 
but he is mild-mannered and has no 
sexual prerogatives (17). It has been 
suggested that some studies, correlating 
mating frequency with dominance, are 
weighed 1n favor of the dominant males 
who, being prominent, receive dispro- 
portionate observer attention, while the 
less dominant males wisely mate only 
when out of sight of the dominant males 
(including the observer). Third, often 
estrous females are the ones who select 
mating partners; they are not passive 

The attempt to extrapolate from 
animal to human behaviors, however, 
suffers from a major conceptual and 
factual flaw. Even if some sex- 
associated behavior patterns were 
found to be universal across primate 
species, we could still not generalize 
from non-human primate to human be- 
haviors since the human brain has 
evolved over the past 5 million years 
from the chimpanzee-size brain of our 
Australoplthedne and other early 
upright hominld ancestors to a brain 
which 1s quantitatively and qualita- 
tively different from that of other 
primates. It 1s a cortex that provides 
for conceptualization, abstraction, 
symbol 1zat Ion, verbal communication, 
planning, learning, memory and associ- 
ation of experiences and ideas, a 
cortex that permits an Infinitely 
rich behavioral plasticity and frees 
us Individually from stereotyped 
behavior patterns. Furthermore, 
the human cortex constructs and trans- 
mits the body of ideas and values 

rfhlch constitute our culture and so 
liberates our human history from 
nany pre-human modes of behavior. 
1"h1s determines the unique humanness of 
jur behavior. 

Thus, the major conceptual 
difficulty for socioblologists which 
they either Ignore or use fancy 
/erbal footwork to explain away is 
that there are no universal behavioral 
traits among either monkeys and apes 
)r humans; there 1s neither a "primitive" 
Drimate model for human "nature" nor 
»ven a human nature , except for our 
tremendous capacity for learning and 
for behavioral plasticity . 

Finally, the literature based 
an the Man the Hunter theory of 
human evolution, 1n vogue now for 
aver a decade, provides us with ex- 
amples of most categories of violations 
af the scientific method which happen 
to be generated by sexist biases: 
jnproven and unwarranted assumptions, 
biased language and questions, 
fanciful theorizing unrestrained 
jy lack of substantiating evidence 
Dr by the existence of contradictory 
lata, omissions of unwelcome data 
md of alternative interpretations. 

Imposing the model of the modern 
\meri can/European nuclear family 
vith Its rigid sex-role dichotomy 
jpon our Australoplthedne ancestors 
jf 3-5 million years ago, prominent 
nale anthropologists attribute all 
mman cultural and intellectual 
ivoTution to courageous, strong, 
adventuresome, innovative man , 
Dondlng with his fellows to hunt and 
aring home the meat to the dependent 
*1fe and babes. Tool and weapon 
naking, language, and cooperation, 
ire said to have evolved from the 
iunt1ng activities of early male 
lominlds (18). Man evolved and 
voman incubated. 

Data for alternative reconstruc- 
tions are abundant: first, the earliest 
jrcheological evidence for butchering 
)f large trapped animals with flake 
»tone tools dates form only 0.5 
nilHon years ago and for the hunting 

of large animals with weapons (an 
elephant with a spear between its 
ribs) dates from about 100,000 
years ago; fossil evidence suggests 
that most hunting before that was 
the gathering of small animals (re- 
quiring Ingenuity and speed, not 
strength) and the butchering of large 
animals that were sick, dead or mired(19). 
Thus there 1s no evidence that hunting 
could have been a force for the 
evolution of early hominlds since 
1t appears to be a part of only our 
recent history. Second, the study of 
modern gathering-hunting peoples 
(the closest models we have for the 
reconstruction of Australoplthedne 
and early hominld cultures) demon- 
strates that plants, nuts, roots, 
etc., gathered by women, account for 
50-90% of the protein and caloric 
intake of the group(20); third, since 
1t 1s likely that Australoplthedne 
woman also was the gatherer of food 
(plant and small animal) as well as 
the carrier of nursing babies, it 
is she who probably Invented the 
earliest tools, baby slings, food 
containers and choppers as well as 
agriculture, agricultural tools 
and pottery(21). Woman the Hunter- 
Gatherer emerges as an Important 
source and participant in human 
cultural evolution. 

For more than a century social, 
and behavioral sciences and medicine 
have theorized about the nature and 
"proper" role of women. In recent 
decades the biological sciences 
have joined in the effort to justify, 
explain and maintain the sexual 
status quo. The time has come for 
feminist scholars, for women to 
overcome hundreds of years of negation, 
to Introduce women and the subject 
of women Into the fields of scholar- 
ship as well as Into the social politics 
of real life, and, finally, to make 
the sciences whole. 


1. Androgens constitute a 
family of sex hormones produced in 
largest quantities by the testes but 
also produced by ovaries and adrenal 


2. Mounting 1s the mating posture 
most frequently observed in male rats 
and other mammals. Females normally, 
however, may be seen to mount other 
females or males. 

3. Estrogens constitute a family 
of sex hormones produced in largest 
quantities by the ovaries but also 
produced by the testes and adrenal 
glands. It has recently become clear 
that many tissues in the body, 
including the brain, normally meta- 
bolize or convert androgens to estro- 
gens in both sexes, and for many sex 
hormonal actions certain estrogens 
are the effective forms. 

4. C. Doughty and P.G e McDonald, 
"Hormonal Control of Sexual Differenti- 
ation of the Hypothalamus in the 
Neonatal Female Rat," Differentiation , 
2 (1974) : 275-285. 

P.G. McDonald and C. Doughty, 
"Androgen Sterilization in the Neonatal 
Female Rat and Its inhibition by an 
Estrogen Antagonist," Neuroendocrinology. 
12 (1973/1974): 182-188. 

K.H. Ryan, F. Naftolin, 
V. Reddy, F. Flores and Z. Petro, 
"Estrogen Formation in the Brain," 
American Journal of Obstetrics and 
Gynecology , 114 (1972): 454-460. 

J. Weisz and C. Gibbs, 
"Conversion of Testosterone and 
Androstenedione to Estrogens in 
Vitro by the Brain of Female Rats," 
Endocrinology , 94 (1973): 616-620. 

R.E. Whalen, C. Battle and 
W.G. Luttage, "Anti-Estrogen Inhi- 
bition of Androgen Induced Sexual 
Receptivity 1n Rats," Behavioral 
Biology , 7 (1972): 311-320. 

5. Progestins constitute the 
third family of sex hormones and are 
produced in largest quantities by the 
ovaries, especially during pregnancy, 
but also by testes and adrenals. 

6. B.H. Shapiro, A.S. Goldman, 
A.M. Bonglovannl, J.M. Marino, 
"Neonatal Progesterone and Feminine 
Sexual Development," Nature , 264 
(December 1976): 795-7961 

7. For example, Goldfoot 
(personal communication) has observed 
in a laboratory colony of rhesus 
monkeys that, regardless of the hormonal 
state, the rate of females' mounting 

of other females skyrockets when males 
are removed from the colony. 

8. See, for example, R.Ardrey, 
The Territorial Imperative (New 
York: Atheneum, 1966). 

C.R. Carpenter, A Field Study 
in Siam of the Gibbon (Baltimore: 
Johns Hopkins Press, 1 941 ) . 

S. Goldberg, The Inevitability 
of Patriarchy (New York: Morrow, 1973). 

~T. I use him , his and he_ here 

10. One of the best and earliest 
critical analyses of sexist biases, 
especially as reflected 1n language, 
1n the biological sciences was 
provided 1n 1948 by Ruth Herschberger 
in Adam's Rib (New York: Harper and 
Row, 1970). 

11. For a more detailed discussion 
of some issues raised here see R. Bleier, 
"Social and Political Bias in Science: 

An Examination of Animal Studies and 
their Generalizations to Human Behaviors 
and Evolution" in Genes and Gender. 11. 
Pitfalls in research on Sex and Gender , 
ed. R. Hubbard and M. Lowe, Gordian 
Press, in press. 

12. J.B. Lancaster, Primate Behavior 
and the Emergence of Human Culture" " 

(New York: Holt, Rlnehart and Winston, 1975). 

13. E. Leacock, "Women in Egali- 
tarian Societies" 1n Becoming Visible : 
Women in European History , ets. Renate 
Bridenthal and Claudia Koonz (Boston: 
Houghton Mifflin, 1977). 

R.R. Leavitt, Peaceable Primates 
and Gentle People: Anthropological" 
Approaches to Women ' s Studi es ( Harper 
and Row, 1975). 

L. Lelbowitz, "Perspectives 
in the Evolution of Sex Differences," 
1n Toward an Anthropology of Women , 
ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly 
Review Press, 1975). 

T. Rowel 1, Social Behavior of 
Monkeys (Penguin, 1972). 

" T. Rowell , "The Concept of 
Social Dominance," Behavioral Biology , 
U. (June, 1974): 131-154. 

T. Tanner and A. Zihlman, 
"Women 1n Evolution, Part 1: Innovation 
and Selection 1n Human Origins, " 
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and 
Society , 1 (1976): 585-608. 


14. See Footnote 13: 
Lancaster, Leavltt, Lelbowitz. 
Also: G.B. Kolata, "Primate 

Behavior: Sex and the Dominant Male,: 
in Science , 191 (January 1976): 55-56. 

15. J. Goodall, "The behavior 
of free living chimpanzees In the 
Gombe Stream Reserve," in Animal 
Behavior Monogram , 1 (1968):161-311. 

16. G.G. Eaton, "Male Dominance 
and Aggression 1n Japanese Macaque 
Reproduction," 1n Reproducti ve Behavior , 
ed. W. Montagna and w. Sadler (New 
York: Plenum, 1974). 

17. G. Schaller,' The Mountain 
Gorilla: Ecology and Behavior (Chi ca go : 
University of Chicago Press, 1963)» 

18. "The Biology, Psychology, and 
Customs That Separate Us From the 
Apes-All These We Owe to the Hunters 
of Time Past." S. Washburn and 

C. Lancaster, "The Evolution of 
Hunting," in Man the Hunter , ed. 
R.B. Lee and I. DeVore (Chicago: 
Aldlne, 1968). 

19. A. Zlhlman and N. Tanner, 
"Gathering and the Hominid Adaptation," 
1n Female Hierarchies (New York: 
Harry Frank Geggenhelm Foundation 

Third International Symposium, April 1974). 
See also Tanner and Zlhlman 
(footnote 13.) 

20. R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, eds. 
Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers (Cambridge: 
Harvard University Press, 1976). 

21. For a more detailed critique 
and reconstruction of evolution, 
see: S. Slocum. "Women the Gatherer: 
Male Bias In Anthropology," in 
Toward an Anthropology of Women , ed. 
Rayna Relter (New York: Monthly Review 
Press, 1975); Tanner and Zlhlman. 


PA.OjJe44o/L ol NewwphyAiology 
and Women 1 & Studies, UniveAAity 
o£ WiAconAin Medical School 
M.P. Medical College. o& 
Pennsylvania 1949 

Margaret Mead 

"There 1s a good possibility that women 
have unique capacities, even though 
these capacities are only based on 
women's Individual life experiences, 
that are different from those of men. 
The question 1s: are we going to lose 
them, pretend they aren't there, or use 
them constructively?" 

"The older a science 1s, the more 
pickled or fossilized masculine be- 
havior is in 1t." 

"By and large, the best work at present 
in the human sciences 1s done by women, 
and there 1s a great difference between 
the sciences that recognize that fact 
and those that don't. The sciences that 
recognize 1t are anthropology, clinical 
psychology and psychiatry. The social 
sciences that don't recognize it are 
sociology, social psychology and exper- 
imental psychology." 

- Margaret Mead 
Conference on the Participation 
of Women 1n Scientific Research, 
Washington, D.C., October 19, 1977 



by Judith Long Laws 

The focus of this paper is 
methodology 1n its broadest sense: 
how we do social science. Most of 
those who Identify themselves as 
social scientists were trained in 
universities, and acquired there an 
Image of the subject matter, an 
awareness of what constitutes "worth- 
while" research topics, and skills 1n 
acquisition and analysis of data. 
These are subsumed under the multiple 
meanings of the term paradigm in 
Kuhn's (1970) work. Kuhn i illuminates 
the conduct of science as a human 
enterprise, emphasizing irrational 
or noncontent determinants of the 
processes by which disciplines embrace 
and discard paradigms. Paradigms 
are guiding frameworks for analyses- 
sets of assumptions, Implicit or 
explicit, which frame the work 
scientists do. Kuhn contrasts 
"normal science" (or business as usual) 
with processes of paradigm crisis and 

Patriarchy as Paradigm 

In Kuhn, the term paradigm is 
used with reference to a broad spectrum 
of levels of generality, from world- 
view to teaching exemplar,. Here I use 
the term to refer to the domain 
assumptions associated with a social 
system which actualizes dominance of 
women by men, together with Ideology, 
knowledge, and socialization practices 
which render such dominance expected, 
"natural" and "real". The specific 
manifestations of these domain 
assumptions vary over the realms of 
organized social activity. In social 
science, one manifestation is the 
perception of male as normal and 
female as exception, of man as essence 
and woman as accident. 

This kind of thinking leads to 
practices which severely compromise 
the validity of research in social 
psychology. Investigators tend to 

prefer male subjects and use them 
predominantly (Carlson and Carlson 
1961: Holmes and Jorgenson 1971). 
Moreover, authors are willing to 
generalize from findings based on 
male subjects but not female (Schwabacher 
1972). When authors specify the sex of 
S, it 1s most often female (Schwabacher 
1972; McKenna and Kessler 1974). 
It 1s not necessary to specify when 
the situation 1s normal (i.e., the 
universe 1s male.) 

Research on the use of the 
generic "he" reinforces the impression 
of a mono-sex world: most readers do 
not construe "he" to include females 
(Martyna 1978). 

Again, Harris (1972) found that 
male researchers are less likely to 
look for sex differences in their 
data than are women. By Inference, 
researchers have found out all they 
need to know about man by studying 
men; Information concerning women 
will not advance scientific knowledge. 
In addition, there appears to be 
sex-typ1ng of experimental situations 
or tasks, which 1s allowed to influence 
selection of subjects (McKenna and 
Kessler 1974). For example, most 
studies of power do not include women 
as subjects; much less does the normal 
scientist seek to understand power 
motives and the exercise of power 
in women. 

Normal social science thus takes 
for granted that the human we seek 
to understand is a heterosexual white 
male. Because the patriarchal paradigm 
is taken for granted, the attributes 
of the normal are not often made 
explicit or systematically analyzed. 
However, the characteristics of the 
deviant, or that which is problematic, 
are analyzed. Because male is the 
norm, the study of females in patri- 
archal social science is carried out 
against a backdrop of implied compar- 
ison with the male. The asymmetry 
results 1n aborted comparison, which 
remains Inconclusive. Moreover, 
the normal /deviant polarity results 
in a further error since gender 1s 
always Invoked when females are being 


studied, findings are often attributed 
to gender without specification of 
the intervening processes. The converse 
does not occur: findings Involving 
males are rarely ascribed to gender, 
and intervening processes remain 
obscure. As Parlee (1975, p. 130) 
observes, "By formulation of a problem 
1n such a way that sex appears to be 
a relevant part of the description 
and by failing to include the other 
sex as a control group, one has effective* 
ly prejudged the question of whether 
there 1s a need for a separate 
'psychology of women."' 

The male-1s-normal thesis 
contributes to the subject/object 
problem in social science studies of 
rfomen, of sex roles, of sex difference, 
and of related topics. The study of 
tfomen 1s relegated to a secondary 
place, in terms of scholarly attention, 
the allocation of resources, training 
Df apprentice social scientists, 
publications, etc. Thus, for example, 
3ordon (1975 p. 563) notes that 1n 
llstory, the study of women is over- 
looked 1n political, economic, and 
ilplomatlc history, and confined to 
social history; moreover, social 
ilstory has come to connote all that 
is trivial and ephemeral. The 
trivial izati on of women and "women's 
Issues" 1s a hallmark of patriarchal 
social science,, 

Examples of viewing women as 
•bjects abound 1n the sociological 
iterature on fertility, the family, 
nd occupational status. Traditional 
reatments of women 1n the family 
Iterature have consistently foundered 
>n an inability to see women as indl- 
iduals: the unit of analysis Is 
he family, but Its sociological 
ttrlbutes are taken from the husband, 
inly a few years ago, the problem of 
iow to measure a wife's contribution 
o family socioeconomic status was 
iewed as intractable. The feminist 
ritique of this position has resulted, 
n a rather short time, in revision of 
he standard measure (standardized on 
tales) and a handful of innovative 
lternatlves. These areas abound 
n examples of direct improvement 

1n the quality of work within tradi- 
tional research agendas. 

The Development of Feminist Scholarship 

The major thrust of feminist 
scholarship has diverged from that of 
patriarchal science. 

For individual feminist scholars, 
as for the Women's Studies programs 
which came to serve as a focus for 
some of their activity, the starting 
point for inquiry was often the 
recognized anomalies within the 
dominant paradigms of their disci- 
plines. The study of women was seen 
as a corrective to the relative 
neglect of women in the subject matter. 
The "problem" was diagnosed as inade- 
quate information, soon to be corrected. 
While substantive areas like the 
study of sex roles would remain, it 
was assumed that in most instances 
new data on women would be incorpor- 
ated into the functional areas from 
which it was missing, and Women's 
Studies would fade away. On the 
other hand, feminist scholars became 
aware that women were underrepresented 
1n the organization of their disci- 
plines as they were in the subject 
matter. Thus, a stance of activism 
vis a vis the profession and the 
Institution arose during the first 
surge of intellectual activity focussing 
on women. 

Early on, feminist scholarship 
showed an Interdisciplinary tendency 
which remains pronounced to the 
present day. In part, the interdis- 
ciplinary scope of individuals' 
work reflects the search for data 
on women, which appeared scarce 1n 
any single discipline. In part, 
interdisciplinary comparisons 
represent an attempt to test the 
generality of emerging theories of 
sex status. In part, the inter- 
disciplinary focus reflects the recog- 
nition that the study of women cuts 
across the traditional organization 
of knowledge which excludes women. 

No feminist paradigm can be defined 
with certainty at this time, but 1t 


is possible to characterize the 
corpus 1n general terms. Feminist 
scholarship centers upon women 
(rather than merely M 1nclud1ng M 
women); it evidences a familiarity 
with existing research on women. It 
goes beyond simple description of 
the status quo, seeking systematic 
explanation. And it is concerned 
with the social uses of knowledge 
about women. Although not all feminist 
scholars have direct connection with 
public policy, they tend actively to 
take responsibility for correcting 
misinformation and the misuse of infor- 
mation. Feminist scholarship is 
Interdisciplinary; the new scientific 
community which is being formed counters 
the parochialism of normal science. 
The work which is female centered 
tends to be independent of the patri- 
archal research agenda and of at 
least some of the constraints of the 
normal science community,. 

Time does not permit a detailed 
comparison between feminist and patri- 
archal social science and the relation- 
ships between the two communities. 
An important contrast lies in the 
neglect and analysis, respectively, 
of the social context of individual 
behavior. Paradoxically, a more universal 
and more integrated social science may 
well come from that group which 1s 
criticized for its "narrowness" 1n 
studying women. By thorough analysis 
of the consequences of gender class 
membership and the conditions under 
which such effects occur, feminist 
scholars are likely to shed light on 
human functioning, while coincidentally 
rescuing social psychology by bringing 
society back 1n. 


Carlson, E.R. and Carlson, R. 

Male and Female Subjects 1n 

Personality Research. 

Journal Abn. and Soc. Psyc h. 61 

(1961) 4M-83. 

Parlee, Mary Brown 

Review Essay: Psychology. 

Signs 1,1, 119-139. 
Gordon, L1 nda 

A Socialist View of Women's 

Studies, Signs 1,2 559-66 (1975) 

Harris, S.L. 

Who Studies Sex Differences? 
American Psychologist 2 7 (1972) 1077- 

Holmes, D.S. and Jorgenson, B.W. 

Do Personality and Social Psycholo- 
gists Study Men More Than Women? 
Representative Res earch in S ocial 
Psych .. 71-76 2 (1971). 

Kuhn, Thomas S. 

The Structure of Scientific 
Revolutions. Chicago: Univers 1 ty 
of Chicago Press, 1970. 

Martyna, Wendy 

J. Communications , 1978 

McKenna, W. and Kessler, S.J. 

Differential Treatment of Males 
and Females as a Source of Bias 
1n Social Psychology (Paper deliv- 
ered at APA, 1974). 

Schwabacher, J. 

Male vs. Female Representation 
1n Psychological Research: An 
Examination of JPSP 1970, 1971. 
Catalogue of Selected Documents 
1n Psychology 2, (1972) 20-21. 


kshoclutt Pto^eAAo-t otf Sociology 
SyMLctuc Uruv&u<Lty 
Ph.V UrUvesuity o£ Mlch*gan, 
Social Psychology 1968 



by Barbara F. Reskln 

Recently the status of women 1n 
science has received considerable 
attention (for a comprehensive review, 
see Zuckerman and Cole, 1975). 
Explanations for women's lower status 
vis-a-vis men often hinge on hypothe- 
sized differences 1n productivity 
(Brown, 1967, p. 47; Cole and Cole, 
1973, p. 150; Zuckerman and Cole, 
1975 pp. 92-93) have not been tested. 
Using data for doctoral chemists, 
I assessed sex differences In several 
measures of productivity, and then 
estimated sex differences in the 
effects of several potential determin- 
ants of scientific productivity, 
Including Ph.D. background, early 
publications, colleglal recognition 
and employment setting. 

My research is based on careers 
of 229 female and 221 male chemists 
who obtained their Ph.D.'s at U.S. 
universities between 1955 and 1961. (2) 
My productivity measures Include 
pre-doctoral publication (all articles 
published prior to the Ph.D. year), 
early productivity (articles published 
1n the three-year period beginning 
with the Ph. Do year), and decade 
productivity (articles published in 
the chemists' ninth and tenth post 
Ph.D. years ). Early collegial 
recognition is measured by the number 
of times other scientists cited the 
chemists' early work 1n their own 

Although the sex differences In 
productivity were yery small, on the 
average the men outpubllshed the women 
1n nine of the ten years I examined, 
and the size of the differences tended 
to Increase over the decade. The men 
received significantly more citations 
per article than the women. 

In order to determine whether 
different factors Influenced the 
scientific productivity of the sexes, 
I carried out separate statistical 

analyses for the women and the men. 
Overall, the available variables 
were less effective in explaining 
women's productivity over the ten- 
year period, reflecting the greater 
unpredictability of their careers 
(for example, they often held extended 
postdoctoral fellowships — 1n effect, 
permanent unfaculty positions, 
(Reskln 1976); changed jobs more 
frequently; and moved up and down 
in both position and Institutional 
prestige without the professional 
compensations that usually accompany 
such shifts). Luck — being at the 
right place or exposed to the right 
colleagues at the right time, 
having a supportive senior colleague 
or husband, or being unmarried-- 
probably played a large role in 
whether many of the women engaged 
in research which they succeeded 1n 

Turning to the impact of the 
variables I considered, the calibre 
of the Ph.D. department showed a 
small effect on the men's but not the 
women's productivity. This variable 
may reflect graduate training or 
ability. If personal considerations 
(such as marriage or a desire for 
part-time study) or discrimination 
1n admissions or financial support 
constrained the women's choice of 
graduate schools, the association 
between ability and the calibre 
of the Ph.D. department would be 
weaker for the women than the men, 
and thus a less effective proxy for 
ability 1n predicting women's produc- 
tivity. Having held a prestigious 
postdoctoral fellowship showed no 
direct effect on the men's produc- 
tivity, but had a small positive 
effect on the women's. This result 
could represent the benefits of 
postdoctoral training, but also might 
reflect the potential of a postdoctoral 
fellowship to Integrate women into 
their specialty area and to provide 
colleague support. 

University employment usually 
Implies professional rewards for 
publishing; however, the majority 


of the women who began their careers 
1n universities worked disproportion- 
ately in nontenure-track positions, 
usually as research associates (62%, 
compared to 37% of the men). (3) 
Thus, it was not surprising to find 
that both first and decade employment 
1n a university increased the men's 
decade productivity, but neither 
affected the women's. However, the 
pattern was reversed when I considered 
whether the first job was a tenure- 
track position at a university. For 
the men, working in a university was 
more important than the rank at 
which they started. Apparently a 
university job at any rank provides 
men with an incentive to do research 
since promotions were possible, and 
they responded accordingly. The 
relegation of women to non-ladder 
positions provided no rewards for 
producing and hence had no effect 
on the women's performance. In 
contrast, women who held a tenure- 
track appointment might hope to 
advance professionally by publishing, 
and this factor showed the expected 
positive effect. 

Although early productivity has 
been shown to be a good predictor of 
later performance, this association 
occurred only for the male chemists. 
The negligible Impact of the women's 
earlier publications suggests that 
their productivity depends more on 
professional resources and rewards, 
which are often absent. It probably 
also reflects basic instabilities 
in their careers which show more 
frequent job changes and, for 18% 
of the women, some unemployment. 
Zuckerman and Cole (1973, p. 92) 
have suggested that Initially produc- 
tive women may disappoint their 
sponsors, but a weak association 
means that slow starters who surprise 
their sponsors with their later pro- 
ductivity are equally I1kely e 
Apparently, the women depended more 
than men on Intervening factors 
such as their employment setting, 
recognition from colleagues, 
continued Informal support, and formal 
professional rewards for performance, 
perhaps because these are more proble- 

matic for women. 

We see the Importance of such 
factors for both sexes in the signi- 
ficant statistical interactions be- 
tween early productivity and early 
job context. Among chemists of both 
sexes whose first jobs typically 
reward publishing, early productivity 
showed a modest effect on decade 
productivity. Although the results 
for women are somewhat less reliable 
because so few women held tenure- 
track jobs, they do suggest stable 
productivity among women who presum- 
ably were rewarded for publishing. 

For both sexes the results suggest 
that ( precognition from colleagues 
in the form of citations maintains 
productivity, and (2)the productivity 
of scientists who typically lack 
other rewards (due to either their 
employment location or their sex) 
depends particularly on the recog- 
nition that citations provide. 
Citations were more reinforcing for 
those chemists employed outside 
universities who presumably received 
fewer rewards for publishing, and for 
women. The difference in the effect 
of citations for chemists located in 
universities and those employed 
elsewhere was greater for the women 
than for the men. Despite their 
concentration 1n nontenure-track 
positions, university women are 
probably better integrated than 
women working in other settings. 
Both their sex and their position 
place the latter women on the periphery 
of the scientific community; so any 
formal recognition of their work, 
by symbolically expressing their 
ties to the scientific community, 
may help to maintain their identifi- 
cation with their field and hence 
their productivity. 

The independent effects of marriage 
and chlldrearlng were non-s1gn1f leant 
for the men. For the women, being 
married and having children each had 
negative, but weak effects Thus, at 
least among chemists, neither variable 
was an Important cause of women's 
lower productivity. A separate 


lalysis of the continuously-employed 
>men suggested that continuous 
nployment may affect the women's 
*oduct1v1ty more than family demands 
). Any unemployment substantially 
iduced the women's productivity 
id this effect was Independent of 
lose factors such as marriage or 
illdren that might have prompted 
>men to Interrupt their careers 

Career continuity might reflect 
"ofesslonal commitment (although 
ivoluntary unemployment is more 
)mmon for female scientists than 
lies; "Chemical and Engineering News', 1 
me 23, 1975, p. 23), but opportunities 
>r advancement undoubtedly affect 
)th career continuity and commitment,, 
i fact, among academic chemists, 
>men whose first jobs were not on 
)e tenure track were more likely 
) Interrupt their careers than were 
>men 1n tenure-track positions, 
iternatlvely, human-capital 
:onomists (e.g., Polachek 1975) suggest 
lat women's productive value "depre- 
iates" during periods of "home time"; 
tus, according to human-capital 
leory, the longer a woman stays 
>me, the more her research skills 
>solesce, and the lower her later 
•oductlvlty. But the length of 
ime a woman was out of the labor 
>rce had a weaker effect on 
•oductivlty than did the dichotomous 
iriable, any unemployment vs. no 
lemployment, rather than the stronger 
ffect Implied by the depreciation 
^pothesls. The data were also 
consistent with a third alternative 
lat the jobs women who had been 
lemployed held at the end of the 
icade were less favorable to high 
•oductlvlty. Regardless of its 
iterpretatlon, continuous 
iployment was not an important 
Jtermlnant of women's productivity: 
t accounted for less than 4% of the 
triance in decade productivity 
id was less Important than either 
»tt1ng of the first job or colleglal 
jcognltion 1n the form of citations. 

In summary, male chemists— at 
»ast those who finished graduate 
:hool 15-20 years ago— probably 

outpubllshed female members of their 
cohorts, although to a smaller degree 
than 1s commonly supposed. In addition, 
the determinants of scientific pro- 
ductivity differed for the sexes in 
several ways. The calibre of the 
Ph.D. department was more important 
for the men's productivity than the 
women's, while the opposite was true 
for a prestigious postdoctoral 
fellowship. Women benefited more than 
men from employment in a tenure- 
track university position; whereas 
men's early productivity had a 
bigger impact on their decade 
productivity, and university employment 
accentuated the impact of early 
productivity on later output for men 
more than for women. Finally, women's 
productivity was more responsive to 
published citations by colleagues 
than men's was. 

These results are consistent with 
claims that women tend to be outside 
both formal reward structures and 
informal collegial networks which 
encourage scientists to engage in 
and publish research and suggest that 
productivity differences will disappear 
when women are fully integrated into 
the scientific community. 


1. A longer, more technical 
version of this paper originally 
appeared in the American Journal of 
Sociology (Vol. 83, no. 5, March 1978: 
1235-43). I am grateful to the 
American Journal of Sociology and 

the University of Chicago Press for 
permission to reprint this abridged 

2. Reskin (1977) provides details 
on sampling and measurement. 

3. This difference was even 
greater at the end of the chemists' 
first postdoctoral decade, when 
two-fifths of the women were still 
in nontenure-track positions, while 
all of the men were tenured or on 

a tenure track. 



Brown, David G., The Mobile Professors . 
Washington, D.C: American 
Council on Education. 1967 
"Chemical and Engineering News." 

June 23, 1975, p. 23 c 
Clemente, Frank, "Early Career 

Determinants of Research Productivity." 
American Journal of Sociology 79 
(September, 1973: 409-19.) 
Cole, Jonathan and Stephen Cole, 

Social Stratification in Science 
Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press. 1973. 
Polachek, Solomon W., "Discontinuous 
Labor Force Participation and Its 
Effect on Women's Market Earnings." 
P.p. 90-122 in Sex, Discrimination , 
and the Division of Labor , 
edited by Cynthia B. Lloyd. 1975. 
New York: Columbia University Press. 
Reskin, Barbara F., "Sex Differences 
1n Status Attainment in Science: 
The Case of the Postdoctoral Fellowship" 
American Sociological Review 41 
August, 1976: 597-612. 

, "Scientific Productivity 

and the Reward Structure of Science" 
American Sociological Review 42 

(June, 1977: 451-504.) 

1 "Scientific Productivity, 

Sex, and Location in the Institution 
of Science," American Journal of 
Sociology 83 (March, 1978: 221-36.) 
Simon, Rita James, Shirley Merritt Clark 
and Kathleen Gal way. "The Woman 
Ph.D.: A Recent Profile." 
Social Problems 15 (Fall, 1967:1235-43.) 
Zuckerman, Harriet and Jonathan R. Cole. 
"Women 1n American Science." 
Minerva 13 (Spring, 1975: 82-102.) 


of Radical Feminism 


"There 1s some old semantic baggage 
to be discarded so that Journeyers 
will be unencumbered by malfunctioning 
(male- functioning) equipment. The cere- 
bral Spinner can criticize patriarchal 
myth and scholarship because she knows 
it well. She must not only know the 
works of The Masters; she must go much 
further. She must see through them 
and make them transparent... There 1s 
nothing like the sound of women really 
laughing. The roaring laughter of 
women 1s like the roaring of the eter- 
nal sea." 

- Mary Daly 
Gyn/Ecology : The Metaethlcs of 
Radical Feminism 


A6&ocia£e. P*oj[e6404 o£ Sociology 
Indiana UwiveAAity 
PH.D. UyiiveA&>Lty o£ (fkuklngton, 
Sociology 1973 



by June Sochen 

Historian Page Smith has written 
that history 1s the record of past 
events while philosopher George 
Santayana has observed that those who 
do not know the past are doomed to 
repeat it. Both views, though sound 
on the surface, become troublesome 
and doubtful upon examination. Whose 
record, of which past events, a feminist 
reader asks Professor Smith? Knowing 
the past abuses against women, someone 
might retort to Professor Santayana, 
is no guaranteed remedy of present 
abuses. Similarly, many of the human 
groups who have traditionally been 
ignored by past historians and philoso- 
phers might ask why their events, their 
thoughts, and their records have not 
been Included in the record books of 
the past. 

The study of the past has been 
governed by the ruling group of the 
society; by white men generally in 
Athens, Jerusalem, Isfahan, and 
Rome, and all other literate and oral 
societies where history has been 
respected and kept. It was not done 
this way as part of an elaborate 
conspiracy to ignore one sex and large 
numbers of the same sex, but rather as 
a positive statement about values, 
world view, and perspective. The rules 
of a culture believed, assumed, and 
perpetuated the belief that their 
power was legitimate and their actions 
and thoughts worthy of remembrance. 
They Instructed their teachers, poets, 
historians, and philosophers to 
articulate this message to their 
subjects and to teach it to their children. 
All of the society's agents complied 
and everyone, willingly or unwillingly, 
collaborated 1n the perpetuation of 
the message. 

What feminists in the late 
twentieth century call the "male 
dominated" view of history has referred 
to the majority's view of the world for 
centuries. The belief in hierarchy, 
In privilege of birth, talent, and 

wealth, 1n racial distinctions, and in 
patriarchy has lived a long life In 
multiple cultures throughout human 
time. It 1s only 1n the last two 
hundred and fifty years that critics 
of the established Ideology have risen 
up, questioned the underlying values of 
historical wisdom, and have been 
heard as they created their own, 
unique vision of the past, the present, 
and the future. Indeed, one's estimate 
of the present and future is intimately 
tied to one's view of the past. When 
Mary Wollstonecraft in the late eighteenth 
century wrote her vindication of the 
rights of women, she issued a cry that 
continues to be heard, and one that 
continues to be appropriate, a sad 
commentary on how little has changed 
rfi the past two centuries. 

Herstory 1s a temporary corrective 
to history; it is a conscious recog- 
nition that most history books and 
most historians have only preserved a 
yery limited, skewed view of the past. 
They have included battles and 
legislation, but have totally ignored 
domestic life, cultural activities, 
and human relationships. They have 
dehumanized the history books by 
limiting their vision to a few men 
acting out their power and fates on 
the human landscape. They have ignored 
women, slaves, minority people, 
unpopular Ideas, and the environment 1n 
their descriptions of military feats, 
presidential administrations, and 
political battles. Herstory faces 
the lives of ordinary and extraordinary 
women; it discusses family life in the 
multitude of settings in which it has 
occurred; and It discusses volunteer 
as well as paid labor of ordinary folk 
in order to recapture the activity 
of past peoples. 

Herstory 1s, 1n Itself, a 
philosophical statement, an alterna- 
tive to traditional history. It assert; 
the accomplishments of previously 
unrecognized women and men who built 
America; it elevates the importance 
of mothering, of volunteering, and of 
all human labor as part of the stuff 
and substance of human life. It 
adds human drama, emotion, and conflict 


Into the record books of the past. 
Herstory Is the necessary bridge to 
human history, to a fuller recording 
of the past, to one that recognizes 
the diverse efforts and contributions 
of a variety of people in the making 
of a society. By studying herstory, 
history, and the human story, we can 
remember the accomplishments of all 
humans as well as the multiple 
perspectives that have governed 
human actions. Every generation 
rewrites Its history, herstory, and 
human story. By acknowledging the 
diversity of stories to be remembered, 
we help ourselves shape our futures 
with greater knowledge, respect, and 


Vfiohmon. o^ H<uto>iy 
HotUhejOLAtvui IZJLLnoJU Univesaity 
Pfi.P. Uont!fwou>t2An t Hi&£oiy 1967 


'Womaix and JNature 

k% Susan Qriffin m 

"I begin the book by tracing a history of 
patriarchy's judgments about nature. ..and 
place these judgments side by side, chron- 
ologically, with men's opinions about the 
nature of women.. .the book 1s not so much 
Utopian as a description of a different 
way of seeing. ooThe feelings which enter 
these words are very real, and... in this 
matter of woman and nature we have cause 
to feel deeply . M 

- Susan Griffin 
Woman and Nature ; The Roaring Inside 


"To eliminate women's studies would be to 
perpetuate the perverted vision of human- 
ity projected by exclusively one-sided 
viewpoints ...We must support a feminine 
perspective 1n a masculine world. At 
stake 1s nothing less than our Intellect- 
ual credibility and mental health— to say 
nothing about those highly revered, but 
frequently neglected, academic principles 
of mere truth and honesty". 
- Arlene N. Okerlund 
Chronicle of Higher Education 
April 16, ld73 



promised colors of Spring tulips and 
Fodlls are late this year. In the 
cenhof ("kitchen garden") of Holland 

gardens are a whole month behind usual . 
>1ster 1n Upstate New York writes that 

hopes are getting threadbare. Every 
ilng I summon my sleeping bulbs: "Wake 

• but they are deaf, reluctant. A bad 
l, I think. 

•e 1s, however, cause for celebration, 
i this Issue our quarterly completes 
years of publication. We have had 
» editorial assistants, seven guest ed- 
*s, and so many contributors that we 
i compiled an Index to Volumes I and 
which appears In this Issue, ably 
;tructed by Lois Smith. We have had 
»e requests to reprint elsewhere 
:es that first appeared in The Crea- 
i_ Woman . 

magazine 1s changing, branching out 
) new activities. In February we 
jght Betye Saar to GSU to present her 
n, "Spirit Catcher", from the public 
2v1s1on series The Originals - Women 
\rt . Saar spoke to an audience that 

* despite blizzard warnings and whose 
lusiasm was reflected in a review by 
riet Marcus 1n the Park Forest Star ; 

Jetye Saar is a stunning woman in 
/ery sense. Strength radiates from 
»r compact body and rings in her 
)1ce despite Its soft pitch,.. There 
; nothing classic about this woman, 
»t everything classic 1s somehow 
•esent 1n her". 

month later we had a dinner party 
lonor Judy Chicago on the date of 
opening of her great show, "The 
ler Party" 1n San Francisco. In her 
>cat1on, Rev. Ellen Dohner said, 
•Is artistic statement 1s an attempt 
offset the centuries of phallic 1mag- 
t in art. She has put these Images on 
iner plates as both an homage and a cry. 
light we have come here to break bread 
lether as an echo and an affirmation. 
is 1s a symbolic reenactment for the 
»at and often misunderstood women in 
itory. We celebrate those whose names 

/? _? /&* Q 

are 1n this exhibit, Judy Chicago's 
Immense history-making effort. We also 
celebrate all women sung and unsung 

Shirley Katz sang and played guitar. Joyce 
Mor1sh1ta described the Chicago work. Lynn 
Strauss, with help from the Women's Re- 
source Center, coordinated it all. It was 
a gloriously happy event and it seemed so 
easy to do. Now we are thinking of other 
events, beyond the publication of this 
quarterly, and looking ahead to Volume III, 

The next Issue will be devoted to Politics 
and the Study of Politics, guest editor 
Sara Shumer, Professor, Haverford College., 
Deadline for copy: June 21. 

The Fall issue will honor the Child and 
the Family, In this International Year of 
the Child, guest editor Roberta Bear, 
Professor of Early Chilhood Education at 
Governors State University. 
Deadline for contributions: September 21. 

We Invite your continued support, your 
subscriptions, your original contribu- 
tions and your encouragement. 




"■\hout Translations". Suzanne Prescott. I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

"American Indian Women: Problems of Communicating a Cultural/Sexual Identity." Clara Sue Kidwell. II, 3, 1979, pp. 33-38 

"Androgyny: The Unfinished Task." Natalie Hayes. II, 2, 1978 , p. 3-4. 

Askcy, Ruth. BY OUR OWN HANDS. Book Review. II, 1, 1978, p. 16. 

Asuncion-Lande, Nobleza C. Women Speak Out in Papua, New Guinea." II, 3, 1979, pp. 7-13. 

birdfish. "Witch Rhythm." I, 2, 1977, pp. 10-11. 

"Bird's Nest on Window." Julie Taylor. 11,2, 197R, p. 12. 

Bleier, Ruth. "Difficulties of Detecting Sexist Biases in the Biological Sciences." II, 4, 1979, p. 4 

Blitzstein, Marilyn. "Stalking the Elusive Theologian." I, 3, 1978, p. 16-17. 

"Bottle, Rope and Brush." Julie Taylor. II, 2, cover. 

Brabant, Sarah. "Sex Roles and the Sunday Comics." I, 1, 1977, p. 3. 

"Breaking Free in the Nineteenth Ceriiury." Eileen Huppert. 1,1, 1977, p. 2. 

"The Breast Cancer Controversy." Mimi Kaplan. I, 4, 1978, pp. 14-15. 

Brctz, Fanny Challis. "Messenger Shore, Devil's Lake". II, 2, 1978, p. 6. 

Brown, Helen T. "The Skydiver." II, 2, 1978, p. 5. 

"Buckets and Straw." Julie Taylor. II, 1, 1978, p. 5. 

BY illlR OWN HANDS. Rook Review. Ruth Askev. II, 1, 1978, p. 16. 


"Creativity." Alis Ellis, I. 2, 1977, pp. 8-9. 

"Dark Prospice." Elizabeth A. Havey. I, 2, 1977, 14-16. 

"Difficulties of Detecting Sexist Biases in the Biological Sciences", Ruth Bleier, II, 4, 1979, p. 4 

DOCTORS KANTID: NO WOMAN NF.F.D APPLY. Book Review. Helene Guttman. I, 4, 1978, p. 17. 

Dohner, Rev. Ellen Harvell. "Women in Religion." I, 3, 1978, p. 1. 

"Door County Twilight." Joan Lewis. I, 2, 1977, p. 13. 

Ellis, Alis. "Creativity." I, 2, 1977, pp. 8-9. 

"The Equation." Paul Friedrich. I, 1, 1978, p. 6. 

Evans, Minnie. "Untitled." II, 1, 1978, p. 13. 

"Factors Affecting Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity." Barbara F. Reskin. II, 4, 1979, p. 13 

"leather and Stone", Rhoda Riley. II, 2, 1978, p. 7. 

"Female Iconography." Joelynn Snyder-Ott. II, 1, 1978, p. 9. 

"Feminism and Patriarchy: Competing Ways of Doing Social Science." Judith Long Laws. II, 4, 1979, p. 10 

"Feminist Scholarship: An Intellectual Corrective." Guest editorial. Harriet Gross. II, 4, 1979, p. 3 

"The First Temptation," from the "Parables of Jesus." Sarah Mayhew Hughes. I, 3, 1978, p. 3. 

"Tor Astrid", loni Gordon. II, 1, 1978, p. 14. 
The Four Queens." Lee Shumer. I, 2, 1977, p. 12. 

"Frieda's Jacket." Nancy Youdelman. II, 1, 1978, pp. 10-11. 

Friedrich, Debbie. "Through the Waxing and Waning Hours." I, 1, 1977, p. 7. 
. "to my husband on the eve of the birth of my daughter." I, 1, 1977, p. 1. 

Friedrich, Paul. "The Equation." I, 1, 1978, p. 6. 

"From the Editor's Bed." Helen E. Hughes. "Creative Lives." I, 1, 1977. p. 8; "How I Became an Expert on Female Sexuality." 
I, 2. 1977. p 2; I. 3, 1978, p. 2; "About This Issue's Guest Editor." I, 4, 1978, p. 25; "About This Issue's Guest Editor: 
A collage of images of Betye Saar." II, 1, 1978, p. 18; "About This Issue." II, 2, 1978, p. 11; "From the Editor's Flight 
Cabin." II. 3, 1979, p. 39; II, 4, 1979. p. 19 "Is There a Feminist Criticism of Literature?" I, 2, 1977, p. 12. 

"A Genius for Seeing Relationships." Natalie Hayes. I, 1, 1977, p. 5. 

"Gone." Emily Wasiolek. I, 2, 1977, p. 6. 

"Gordon, Joni . "Doing Art." II, 1, 1978, p. 6. 

. "For Astrid." II, 1, 1978, p. 14. 

"The Grand Canyon." Betty LaDuke. II, 1, 1978, p. 7. 
The Graphic Designer." Suzanne Oliver. II, 2, 1978, pp. 8-9. 

Gray, Sue. "Tv omen of Religious Vision: St. Catherine and Sally Priesand." I, 3, 1978, pp. 11-13. 

Gross, Harriet. "Feminist Scholarship: An Intellectual Corrective." Guest editorial. II, 4, p. 3 

Guttman, Helene. Book Review: DOCTORS WANTED: NO WOMEN NEED APPLY. I, 4, 1978, p. 17. 

. "Where Are the Women in Science Today?" I. 4, 1978, p. 3. 

Hagens, Elizabeth. "The Movement for Appropriate Technology." I, 4, 1978, p. 9. 

Havey, Elizabeth A. "Dark Prospice." I, 2, 1977, pp. 14-16. 

Hayes, Natalie. "Androgyny: The Unfinished Task." II, 2, 1978, p. 3-4. 

. "A Genius for Seeing Relationships." 1,1, 1977, p. 5. 



"History, Herstory, and the Human Story." June Sochen. II, 4, 1979, p. 17 

Hoffman, Arlene F. "Reminiscences." I, 4, 1978, pp. 10-12. 

"How Language Gets in our Way", Mary Ritchie Key. I, 1, 1977, p. 4. 

Hughes, Helen E. "From the Editor's Bed: Creative Lives." I, 1, 1977, p. 8; "How I Became an Expert on Female Sexuality." 

I, 2, 1977, p. 2; I, 3, 1978, p. 2; "About This Issue's Guest Editor." I, 4, 1978, p. 25; "About This Issue's Guest Editor: 
A collage of images of Betye Saar." II, 1, 1978, p. 18; "About This Issue." II, 2, 1978, p. 11; "From the Editor's Flight 
Cabin." II, 3, 1979, p. 39; II, 4, 1979, p. 19 "Is There a Feminist Criticism of Literature?" I, 2, 1977, p. 12. 

Hughes, Sarah Mayhew. "The First Temptation," from the Parables of Jesus. I, 3, 1978, p. 3. 

Huppert, Eileen. "Breaking Free in the Nineteenth Century." 1,1, 1977, p. 2. 
"Hysterectomy." Janet Rohdenburg. I, 4, 1978, p. 17. 

"Images." Betye Saar. II, 1, 1978, p. 3. 

"Images of Black Women in Literature." Alma Walker-Vinyard. I, 2, 1977, pp. 4-5. 

"In Celebration of Katherine", Three Poems by Debbie and Paul Friedrich, I, 1, 1977, pp. 6-7. 

"Is There a Feminist Criticism of Literature?" Helen E. Hughes. I, 2, 1977, p. 12. 

Jackson, Suzanne. "Night Riders." II, 1, 1978, p. 4. 

"Jane Kennedy's Thanksgiving Prayer." Jane Kennedy. I, 3, 1978, pp. 8-9. 

Kaplan, Mimi. "The Breast Cancer Controversy." I, 4, 1978, pp. 14-15. 

. "Women in Children's Literature." I, 2, 1977, pp. 18-20. 

Katz, Shirley. "A Lovely Place on Cedar Street." II, 2, 1978, p. 10. 

. "Mary Daly Speaks to Me." I, 3, 1978, pp. 4-6. 

. "The Mind Unbound." I, 2, 1977, p. 3. 

. "Must I Go Bound." I, 2, 1977, p. 17. 

. "Take My Hand, Sister," words and music. II, 4, 1979, p. 

. "Under the Milking Stool." I, 2, 1977, p. 17. 

Kennedy, Jane. "Jane Kennedy's Thanksgiving Prayer." I, 3, 1978, pp. 8-9. 

Key, Mary Ritchie. "How Language Gets in Our Way." I, 1, 1977, p. 4. 

Kidwell, Clara Sue. "American Indian Women: Problems of Communicating a Cultural/Sexual Identity." I, 3, 1979, pp. 33-38. 

Kim, Young Y. "To Readers: An Introduction." II, 3, 1979, pp. 5-6. 

. "Women in Far East Asia: Cultural Norms and Communication Patterns." II, 3, 1979, pp. 14-22. 

Knox, Doug. "The Most Interesting Letter to the Editor." I, 2, 1977, p. 1. 

LaDuke, Betty. "The Grand Canyon." II, 1, 1978, p. 7. 

Laws, Judith Long. "Feminism and Patriarchy: Competing Ways of Doing Social Science." II, 4, 1979, p. 10 

"Letter to the Editor," in response to "The Most Interesting Letter to the Editor." Harriet P. Marcus. I, 3, 1978, p. 15. 

Lewis, Joan. "Door County Twilight." I, 2, 1977, p. 13. 

. "Mother." I, 2, 1977, p. 13. 

. "The Trip." I, 2, 1977, p. 13. 

"A Lovely Place on Cedar Street", Shirley Katz. II, 2, 1978, p. 10. 

"Male/Female Communication in the United States." Gail M. St. Martin. II, 3, 1979, pp. 23-27. 

"Male/Female Communication in West Germany." Erika Vora. II, 3, 1979, pp. 28-32. 

Malone, Mary. Book Review: WOMEN AND CREATIVITY. II, 1, 1978, p. 8. 

Marcus, Harriet P. "Letter to the Editor," in response to "The Most Interesting Letter to the Editor." I, 3, 1978, p. 15. 

"Mary Daly Speaks to Me." Shirley Katz. I, 3, 1978, pp. 4-6. 

"Messenger Shore, Devil's Lake", Fanny Challis Bretz. II, 2, 1978, p. 6. 

"The Mind Unbound." Shirley Katz. I, 2, 1977, p. 3. 

"Minnie Evans: Painter of Oreams." Alison Saar. II, 1, 1978, p. 12. 

Morton, Rebecca Hawley. "quilt Detail." II, 1, 1978, p. 15. 

"The Most Interesting Letter to the Editor." Doug Knox. I, 2, 1977, p. 1. 

"Mother." Joan Lewis. I, 2, 1977, p. 13. 

"The Movement for Appropriate Technology." Elizabeth Hagens. I, 4, 1978, p. 9. 

"Must I Go Bound." Shirley Katz. I, 2, 1977, p. 17. 

"My Mother - A Traditional Woman - and I - An Untraditional Woman." Rhoda Riley. II, 2, 1978, pp. 6-7. 

"Night Riders." Suzanne Jackson. II, 1, 1978, p. 4. 

"November 1." Suzanne Prescott. I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

"November 2." Suzanne Prescott. I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

"November 3." Suzanne Prescott. I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

Oliver, Suzanne. "The Graphic Designer." II, 2, 1978, pp. 8-9. 

Piontek, Donna. "Welcome to The Creative Woman." I, 1, 1977, p. 1. 


Prescott, Suzanne. "November 1." I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

. "November 2." I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

. "November 3." I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

. "About Translations." I, 2, 1977, p. 7. 

"Quasar's Quest." Betye Saar. II, 1, cover. 

"Quilt Detail." Rebecca Hawley Morton. II, 1, 1978, p. 15. 

"Reflections on the Life of Ida Henrietta Hyde 1857-1945: The Woman Scientist in the Twentieth Century." Gail Susan Tucker. I, 4, 1978, pp. 4-8. 

"Reminiscences." Arlene F. Hoffman. I, 4, 1978, pp. 10-12, 

Reskin, Barbara F. "Factors Affecting Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity." II, 4, 1979, p. 13 

Riley, Rhoda. "Feather and Stone". II, 2, 1978, p. 7. 

. "My Mother-a Traditional Woman-and I - an Untradit ional Woman". II, 2, 1978, pp. 6-7. 

Rohdenburg, Janet. "Hysterectomy." I, 4, 1978, p. 17. 
Roscher, Nina Matheny. "Women in Chemistry." I, 4, 1978, pp. 18-22. 
Saar, Alison. "Minnie Evans: Painter of Dreams." II, 1, 1978, p. 12. 
Saar, Betye. "Images." II, 1, 1978, p. 3. 

. "Quasar's Quest." II, 1, 1978, cover. 

St. Martin, Gail M. "Male/Female Communication in the United States." II, 3, 1979, pp. 23-27. 

"Sex Roles and the Sunday Comics." Sarah Brabant. I, 1, 1977, p. 3. 

Sharp, Marjorie A. "Two Unique Women in the Field of Animal Behavior." I, 4, 1978, pp. 23-24. 

Shumer, Lee. "The Four Queens." I, 2, 1977, p. 12. 

"The Skydiver." Helen T. Brown. II, 2, 1978, p. 5. 

Snyder-Ott, Joelynn. "Female Iconography." II, 1, 1978, p. 9. 

Sochen, June. "History, Herstory, and the Human Story." II, 4, 1979, p. 17 

"Stalking the Elusive Theologian." Marilyn Blitzstein. I, 3, 1978, pp. 16-17. 

"The Story of Goddess Kwan=Yin." A. Yueh-shan Wei. I, 3, 1978, p. 14. 

Strauss, Lynn Thomas. Book Review: WOMEN OF CRISIS. II, , 1978, pp. 13-14. 

"Take My Hand Sister," words and music by Shirley Katz. II, 4, 1979, p. 

Taylor, Julie. "Bird's Nest on Window." II, 2, 1978, p. 12. 

. "Bottle, Rope and Brush." II, 2, cover. 

. "Buckets and Straw." II, 1, 1978, p. 5. 

"The Trip." Joan Lewis. I, 2, 1977, p. 13. 

"To Readers: An Introduction." Young Y. Kim. II, 3, 1979, pp. 5-6. 

Tucker, Gail Susan. "Reflections on the Life of Ida Henrietta Hyde 1857-1945: The Woman Scientist in the Twentieth Century." I, 4, 1978, pp. 4- 

"Two Unique Women in the Field of Animal Behavior." Marjorie A. Sharp. I, 4, 1978, pp. 23-24. 

"Two Women of Religious Vision: St. Catherine and Sally Priesand." Sue Gray. I, 3, 1978, pp. 11-13. 

"Under the Milking Stool." Shirley Katz. I, 2, 1977, p. 17. 

"Untitled." Minnie Evans. II, 1, 1978, p. 13. 

"The Virgin Goddess." Faith Wilding. II, 1, 1978, p. 17. 

Vora, Erika. "Male/Female Communication in West Germany." II, 3, 1979, pp. 28-32. 

Walker-Vinyard, Alma. "Images of Black Women in Literature." I, 2, 1977, pp. 4-5. 

Wasiolek, Emily. "Gone." I, 2, 1977, p. 6. 

Wei, A. Yueh-shan. "The Story of Goddess Kwan-Yin." I, 3, 1978, p. 14. 

. "Women in the Religion of the Old Testament." I, 3, 1978, p. 10. 

"Welcome to The Creative Woman ". Donna Piontek. I, 1, 1977, p. 1. 

"Where Are the Women in Science Today?" Helene N. Guttman. I, 4, 1978, p. 3. 

Wilding, Faith. "The Virgin Goddess." II, 1, 1978, p. 17. 

"Witch Rhythm." Mrrtflsh. I. 2, 1977, pp. 10-11. 

WOMEN AND CREATIVITY. Book review by Mary Malone. II, 1, 1978, p. 8. 

"Women in Chemistry." Nina Matheny Roscher. I, 4, 1978, pp. 18-22. 

"Women in Children's Literature." Mimi Kaplan. I, 2, 1977, pp. 18-20. 

"Women in Far East Asia: Cultural Norms and Communication Patterns". Young Y. Kim. II, 3, 1979, p. 14. 

"Women in Religion." Rev. Ellen Harvell Dohner. I, 3, 1978, p. 1. 

"Women in the Religion of the Old Testament". A. Yueh-shan Wei. I, 3, 1978, p. 10. 

WOMEN OF CRISIS. Book review by Lynn Thomas Strauss. II, 2, 1978, pp. 13-14. 

"Women Speak Out in Papua, New Guinea." Nobleza C. Asuncion-Lande. II, 3, 1979, pp. 7-13. 

Youdelman, Nancy. "Frieda's Jacket." II, 1, 1978, pp. 10-11. 



Please send me The Creative Woman for one year. Enclosed is my check or money order 
for $ 

$ 5.00 regular subscription 
$ 7.00 foreign subscription 
$10.00+ donation and automatic subscription 

Return to: The Creative Woman 

Governors State University 
Park Forest South, IL 60466 







Governors State University 
Park Forest South, IL 60466 

Nonprofit Org. 
U.S. Postage Paid 
Park Forest South, IL 
Permit #178